Desire.

What have I desired? In the past I wanted nothing more than time to myself and time to enjoy the caress of the ground beneath my feet. In the past I craved for nothing but the comfort found in the crook of the trees and clumps of sod in my fingers. In this silly past I wanted no more than to breathe the air of evergreen. What have I desired other than a taste to end my rage?

When I glimpse the witching hour inside – there are moments of peace. There are moments of tranquility as if the moon flapped silently alongside the ghostly owls. There are moments frozen, when the light perched in the eves above my head. It is then that I do not act. Every action I take is a step towards self-satisfaction. This requires the removal of the things which dissatisfy me – otherwise I wouldn’t be acting now would I?

I have lusted for sleep without waking.

Beyond the groves of night; the thorn-ridden forest lurks, a mad and howling thing. It is outraged and stands to guard against reality. However; even the bracken couldn't save me. I like everyone else am forced to breathe fire, to turn to the maze of concrete and glass, to test the forges that churn the sludge, to watch the birds sitting high in their cages forced to lay so many golden eggs. Perfect rows and perfect moats, their uniformity is atrocious and defiling to the natural order of things.

How is it beautiful to live on top of one another squawking and screaming – fighting over so little space? How beautiful is a mile stretch of square-cut tiles compared to the glimpses of natural freedom residing in sparse parts of the world? How does this compare to the wild growth breaking through the gray. How does the sky look veiled in neon lights compared to a night naked with white splendor? How many or how little have heard the cicada’s and the crickets orchestra on summer evenings? I prefer this to the whistles and shrieks that happen within your castles of civilization. I prefer the crown of sunrise to the dreary cloaks of poison.

Yet, the ones who I am attracted to are drawn to the cities. That is where the people are marching in formation to the calls of fast food and the calls of corporation. I look on them in longing but know that this sick love triangle is unfit for me or them. I would fold them in my arms I would fold them to my mouth. They taste of iron and blood. Yet still I crave more, I feel beastly and foul in my addiction.

I rattle with every window by the railroad tracks. I tremble with every leaf in October winds. I shake with every pass by the underpass. If I paced by, you may catch a breeze of guaic wood warmed with vanilla. You’d realize that bergamot and mandarin had entered the building. The squalor of urban life has destroyed my sight. My eyes are fading so I wouldn’t dare to look upon you; I’d have to glare to see your face so I’d wander without a glance.

My silence is deafening. But the roar of despair in others is defeating. My most silent thoughts dictate the motion of my stars. I turn left – they flee to the right. I run forward and they stay in place. It’s only when I’m still that I can watch them dance. Have you stopped to stare? While my life is in constant isolation, my mind in constant journey; my existence is all my own. I’d have it no other way.

There I sit in the shelter of my curtains, so that the sun cannot glimpse me. Once there, hidden away in the safety of shade, I turned my gaze blurred by the terrifying beauty that lay just out of my reach.

There on the horizon of earth and sea, a line of gold. There on the sun scorched beach, the white foam writhes in agony. Have you ever watched the tide rush in? The mist yields to currents of air, muting the thunder of the water. You can watch the stampede of nature rise to the cliffs and then bound the other way. It is an altogether different sight – a different style of caged predator.

Here I shut the door readily, recalling the heat in its entire splendor. I slammed the door on the common life, I breathed in life of my own making. None could guess the ecstasy of such a dull-witted and silent monster thrilled to the brim with joy at the sight of beauty in the world.

Now I can only desire from a distance.

Now I can only want that which I cannot have.

Now I have but one craving.

At the end of my life I wish to say “I have not lost myself to the dominant dogma of this age.” At the end of my life I wish to look back and know that I chose to pace against the tyranny of life. I grasp that events are what wo/men make them. My aim is to hold absolute to the force within against the obstacles without.

Where I Stand

There are certain events in my life that eventually pushed me over the edge. There are certain things in my life that led me away from being just another circuit raving democratic utopian believing boy – to who I am today. Call me what you will, call me a Radical Libertarian, a paleo-right wing conservative, a rugged individualist, a right-wing anarchist, but most importantly know that I am a free-market anarchist.

I learned a few things that have been really useful as devices concerning people and relations.

It is best not to feel weak. It is best not to feel like one needs another. It is best to train yourself to ignore the failings in others because ultimately we all fail. In the end there is only one person who can love you and that’s you, only you. No one, I repeat, no one can wish more fervently to see the sun rise for you, like you.

Isolation is not correlative to independence or strength. Independence is ability to carry on regardless of how depressed one gets. Independence is strength to ignore any possible void one could feel by not having someone else to lean on. Your obligations are to yourself. Take care of yourself, pick yourself up, don’t bitch, just do it. If you don’t – one day, it may kill you.

One day, when your love fails, you won’t waste away. One day when you fail, you’ll look around, bleary-eyed but with full knowledge that the sun rises tomorrow. In short: you can learn a lot about yourself when you become homeless.

People wonder why I can hate the idea of government. I’ll put it simply from my history.

Where was your altruistic social ‘safety net’ when I needed it? Where was the providence of public shelters when I found out that I had to be in an age bracket to have a roof over my head for a night? Why were the shelters located so far from each other? Why were the shelters forced to turn people away? Where was shelter to be had if I had to check in to the building repeatedly throughout the day while I was attempting to make a living or find a job? Where was food to be had when it was easier to dig through a dumpster or get some from behind restaurants from workers?

Why was my welfare check so late and of so little worth that I lost my ability to save any money to get a studio let alone feed myself? I repeat where was this government social safety net when I needed it? It’s a joke and it accomplishes nothing.

Sure, socialists can say – we need to give people welfare at the least. But it accomplished nothing for me. The money barely allowed me to subside. Welfare kept me on welfare.

Government upholds a disgusting, loathsome cycle of poverty and despotism. People eventually become stuck in the cycle, herded chattel unable to do anything but become less than human.

How was I to present myself to get a job, when my clothing fell apart? I had to wash my clothes in sinks at gas stations and public restrooms. Then I had to dry them out underneath the hand dryers making sure my work presentable clothing didn’t wrinkle as I did so. Do you know how it feels to have other people look at you in disgust when you’re in a public restroom at a mall washing your clothing? Do you realize how many hours it takes to sufficiently accomplish this? Do you know what it feels like to want to be truly invisible? Why don’t the shelters have washing machines and dryers for the homeless so that they may be able to dress themselves and smell presentable enough for interviews? Why don’t they have these simple commodities so that humans don’t have to feel like freak shows? Your social government programs are a fallacious disgusting, vile, and disturbing if they believe themselves to be of charity. Worse – these programs fail just like educational standards of public schools. To add insult to injury – the average citizen pays for this.

The average citizen pays for this parasite. The average citizen pays for this cancer.

I found more help from handouts than from any social service. I got more roofs over my head from guys who expected little of me compared to the shelters who wanted time frames, sobriety, and religious fervor. At least I could be fucked up while I spent the night in some filthy apartment and get food.

You who like to write me daily are interesting creatures.* Most of it I trash because I won’t dignify you with a response. I’m indeed amused that so many people like to take time out of their day to let me know how they think of my ideas. Most take to insulting my theories, most take to letting me know how childish my thoughts are. I’ve heard every insult in the book I think, and still some of you are repeat offenders! You’re laughable.

You wouldn’t dare presume I came to believe in market anarchism without having dwelled on the problems of society for at least half of my pathetically short life. You wouldn’t dare presume I put more thought into these ideas than picking up a book and ‘getting inspired’. You wouldn’t dare presume I’ve read everything about it hoping to find some alternative.

You probably wouldn’t presume I’ve poured my soul into the works of Bakunin, Proudhon’s, Emma Goldman, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Max Stirner, Etienne de la Boetie, Wendy McElroy, Erick Mack, Murray Rothbard, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, David and Milton Friedman, Voltairine de Cleyre, Dyer Lum, Kropotkin – do you fathom my perspective now? The list goes on, but name drops are hardly the issue here.
The point is – I’ve invested much thought into this and hence why I am the way I am.

So if I’m so displeased with the world – where do I fit in? If I please to call myself a Market Anarchist in ideology, in all practicality I must adhere to being a Radical Libertarian. I would have to sell myself short. I would have to return to the fold of blind concepts. If I become a statist, a good quiet little citizen, I must continue to believe in voting, where I practice forcing others to live according to my system of belief on an issue if my vote ends up winning. If I indeed want something of my will passed, I must vote for one of the two main parties. I must believe in war, I must believe in welfare – which pushes everyone in poverty to their knees – then removes their feet below the ankle. I must believe in paying annually for the rest of my life to an entity that strips us all of dignity. I must turn the other cheek when I see a homeless person. I must ignore my past. I must pretend that my life is considerably different than theirs.

As you see, I cannot ignore these simple things. As you see, I cannot accept anything less than the extreme.

I cannot help but look into the midnight inside. It quakes, shudders and moans. It is far from logical, but I look inside and find that rage and hope to harness it as the Furies did. Everyone has a cavern inside of them, a place no one else ventures to dig. Inside the placidly dressed businessman one can imagine the pain he feels in his fingers, one can almost taste the despair of the 5-9 knowing he is his own prison.

Anarchism embodies freedom of the ‘soul’, the ‘mind’ and the ‘body’. If the current system is truly justice – then yes I would have it ravaged and disassembled. I would destroy it all. But first – before the destruction of everyone else’s beliefs, I would have everyone believe something other than what is force-fed to them. I would have people simply believe in themselves. I would have them believe they could do without the chains of government. I know with all my heart and my mind – that none of my most fervent hopes will come to pass. But I believe. If you wish to find common ground with me, now you know where I stand.

Absurdity

What is the Absurd? It is, as may quite easily be seen, that I, a rational being, must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act [...] The Absurd, or to act by virtue of the absurd, is to act upon faith [...] I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection.[4]

– Kierkegaard, Søren, Journals, 1849

Yesterday, out of the blue an old friend, once a best friend, called me up. She invited me to her church and youth group. Now whatever it may be she has turned herself completely around (thank goodness.) She was spiraling into drug induced frenzy. Yet, there she was: substance free, actually happy, and married to a wonderful guy, surrounded by very pleasant people. I accepted her invitation out of respect for her and with no thoughts to worship. I have a feeling she wishes the best for me in her own way – so I can accept that. But while I believe there is a higher power, I do not believe it is that power’s will for us to beg for help. I think it laughable that man can ‘know’ god. It is the nature of our minds that we see but one facet from one window. We are an incapable species if we pride ourselves omniscient enough to see the god construct that is reality, which is the wheel of the cosmos.

I believe it is up to each of us to find a suitable path. If some choose not to, so be it. If some choose to seek, so be it. It is not an imperative to seek meaning but it is admirable. Through logic we find that morals are either made through leaps of faith or through each subjective individual viewpoint. I do not believe the bible is capable as a guideline due to humanity’s inherent flaws. So while I felt estranged by the entire service due to their methods of faith, I understood them and appreciated their passion.

How does one endure their self-developed defiance of reality? I’m sure that if I attend more of these services that the question will come eventually as to how I can be so solitary. Despite reality, one accepts they must live it. One cannot hope that imploring any higher power will bring about a relief. One cannot hope to ask another. He must pick himself up despite the odds. One must seek the power within against the obstacles without and tread against the grain –

“With all the tortures of hell if so it must be.” – Kierkegaard, Søren, The Sickness Unto Death.

In accepting reality we then have three options, or rather, three roads to take.

1.) Though we confess life may not be worth living, we reject the notion that suicide is a viable option. Escaping existence empowers nobody. It is most absurd to reject the absurd life.
2.) We may consider the existence of a higher power, but we reject the notion of philosophical suicide through the utilization of prayer.
3.) We accept reality as absurd and beautiful. The only way to craft meaning is through utilization of our choices to lend opportunity which may (or may not) give meaning to life.

This last option thus gives us freedom. The absurdist philosophy if realized maintains that the universe is subjective and not objective. This freedom exists because we can then find our own way for meaning and purpose rather than viewing reality as one of philosophical absolutes. The individual becomes a sovereign existence, another facet to the entire existence.

Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suidice. – Camus, Albert, Myth of Sysiphus and Other Essays.

Historically we are a people who sought meaning. Some approach the nihilist or existential road. Thus their life is paved with thoughts that life is meaningless (I find them a bit silly). Then there is a significant portion who wishes to fill that void, most with a belief in a higher power outside of reality. Hence, the ability to question purpose behind god. But since I believe that the god construct is reality, and reality is absurd, that placing faith in higher powers outside of the realm immediate to us is sillier still.

In this window of the world I am free at least in mind. I must reject determinism and argue that indeterminism is the only compatible notion to freedom.

Free-will exists. The individual is able to take any possible course of action with any given circumstance. Since the popular god construct allows for only a few closed options, I must refuse this version of metaphysical faith. Since I am free to think otherwise, the idea is that even my mind overrides physical causality. I suppose I’ve hit mind-body dualism.

Free-will exists. If people are to truly be responsible and accountable for their actions, then, the stereotypical god construct runs counter to this. To accept the typical god construct we all may commit something that was pre-determinate to even murder, and then say: “The devil/god made me do it.”

Free-will exists. If we realize that ‘will’ is not free due to its confines of causality; but there is a phenomenon acting behind ‘will’ which is free.

It is the nature of a coward and a fool who says – I am fated to be. It is the strong wo/man who states I make my own fate. Let the enemies of the soul quake at humanities natural freedoms.

Conventional Stupi- I mean Wisdom..

Hopefully I can at least teach someone something about the financial crisis at hand. As it stands my thoughts are hardly my own. My thoughts go hand in hand with quite a few economists and quite a few journalists. I merely relay observances in such a disgustingly simple, disturbingly generalized, and woefully short rant as to hope to achieve a listener.

We’ve proven ourselves ignorant of fiscal policies and their ramifications. Mainstream news promotes only the most popular agenda and depicts myth alongside fact. The apparent problem is that people pay attention to the easiest ‘facts’ and never for their lives are willing to dig into the implications stated. Remember the idea of separation of state and church? What about the separation of market and state?

The Austrian theory of the business cycle makes clear a distinction between primary and secondary depressions. Turmoil and trouble in the financial sector is indicative of a secondary depression. However; the cause is the primary depression. This primary depression is a distortion in our mixed-economy’s capital allocations system.

Ignoring theory, the fact is our country is burdened with a vast divide between consumption and production. A completely banal and simplistic read of Adam Smith’s Wealth of the Nations would help even the village idiot to gain a bit of insight on this dilemma.

The problem is monetary policy and largely, fiat “out of nothing” currency. It is the nature of nothing to be nothing. A dollar with any purchasing power means that our imports are of a substantially lower cost. A dollar like ours makes imports costlier. Our reliance on monopoly money has proven the case for the imperative to return to gold backing so I’ll move on.

Trade imbalance is only a symptom. If for example we lower interest rates (the price of time) thanks to government, which are aimed at boosting consumption, we exacerbate the true issue and elongate the business downturn. Instead of consumption driven goals, we are in a state that savings and fewer imports are a necessity. Says Law holds true here. Savings and not spending, creates wealth for an economy.

The information is out there. People knew in the early 80’s that there was an issue with our system, that there was a discrepancy between lending and production. People knew the inevitable downturn would be of a highly significant nature. Downturns are natural.

So let us fast forward a quarter of a century. The expanding monetary policy and its bosom buddy, the bailout guarantee, have disrupted capital gains allocation. Because bailouts were guaranteed people didn’t practice any restraint and the competition was forced to also play the same game in order to bother playing in the same field. Guess what? They can all play dirty because at the end of the game, government, the fed, and the taxpayer work together to bail the criminals out. Logically does this mean we should continue this parental behavior?

Luckily there are economists who are certain that an increase in savings, a reduction of imports and decrease in consumption are a moral imperative for our nation. Luckily debt accumulation has peaked (though our nation is willing to figure out ways of increasing it). Luckily our crisis has reduced foreign creditors’ willingness to extend further loans which would only increase our debt. This is called a market solution.

The socialization of the mortgage market and our recent bailouts will reveal disastrous effects soon enough. Goldman-Sachs economists are speculative and cheery that this will only ride out for about 3-5 years. The pain has only begun and we’re all masochists.

It was Murray Rothbard’s great achievement, his magnum opus to reveal that the Great Depression occurred because it was manufactured. Manufactured and prolonged by policy implementations meant to prevent the cyclical business down-turn. It is the nature of history that people did not pay any attention to the 1920’s business down turn and realize that it was over within 18 months because the market was free to correct itself.

The conventional stupidity is that the Great Depression was some disaster that government and the fed needed to fix. The most disturbing view is that of Bernanke and his notion that inflation (thus theft of the highest order on the people) is the hero of the day.

This is the largest socialist operation in our history. You’d think we’d learn from our mistakes:

What should have happened in 1929 is precisely what should happen now. Let the price system prevail! The government should completely remove itself from the course of action and let the market reevaluate resource values. That means bankruptcies, yes. That means bank closures, yes. But these are part of the capitalistic system. They are part of the free-market economy. What is regrettable is not the readjustment process, but that the process was ever made necessary by the preceding interventions.

Let me state this very plainly: I do not believe for one second that if the government fails to nationalize Freddie and Fannie, the world as we know it will come to an end. Those who are saying so are trying to scare the population, the same as with every other major demand by the regime. It was the same with NAFTA, the WTO, the war on terror, the war on bird flu, the nationalization of airport security, and everything else.

- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Emergent Social Interaction

Individualism By Any Other Name

I’ve been holding a rather interesting discussion on the prospects for privatized ownership of land and services. Spencer Heath addressed this notion by concluding that society could only outgrow slavery to the state by utilizing land properly through free-market methods. His methods were in opposition of the Georgian ideal that land should not and could not be owned (a collectivist scheme by any other name.)

In the book “Politics versus Proprietorship,” he hinted that political governance was indeed an enemy of the market. The notion of ownership in Heath’s book is much like the stewardship of wealth. “To own was to owe.”

Were socio-economic relations so poor under pre-Norman England? What is interesting is that this conception borders Gandhi’s muse of wealth except takes it to a present day setting (neo-feudalism). The nobility who comes to own the land through natural rights is in effect, servants to the people who wish to live on it. In order to benefit: one must ensure beyond a doubt that the tenants of the land are happy.

Murray Rothbard succinctly addressed this notion:

The Heathian goal is to have cities and large land areas owned by single private corporations, which would own and rent out the land and housing over the area, and provide all conceivable "public services": police, fire, roads, courts, etc., out of the voluntarily-paid rent. Heathianism is Henry Georgism stood on its head; like George, Heath and MacCallum would provide for all public services out of rent; but unlike George, the rent would be collected, and the land owned, by private corporate landlords rather than by the government, and the payment therefore voluntary rather than coercive. The Heathian 'proprietary community' is, of course, in stark contrast to the scruffy egalitarian commune dreamed of by anarchists of the Left.

To better illuminate why this is not a form of tyranny by another name Spencer Heath:

To obviate the essential tyranny (coercion) of political administration the proprietary authority, suitably organized, must extend its jurisdiction, and thus its revenues, by itself supplying police and other community services without coercion, out of its own revenues and properties, and thus raise its own values and voluntary incomes.

In anarcho-capitalism it becomes apparent that fees and dues for police and courts would develop towards specialization. It is obvious that one landlord would be unable to apprehend all the needs of each area of society so thus would rely on a codependent competition. In other words, more lords of jurisdiction would develop, this process eventually creating guilds of competitive for-profit services. This specialization due to its privatization means that private ownership must also accept its losses. Thus why it is hard to take advantage of others as is possible through our current political system. The essential truth is, people are not reliant on the market. The market needs the people.

Heathian anarchism is thus a proprietary community containing multi-tenant properties such as hotels and apartments, shopping centers, places of entertainment such as parks and even educational districts for schools. The concept of multi-tenant property is the opposite of traditional real-estate development. It would be in the landlords best interests to provide community service and other pleasing luxuries in order to hope that people would wish to live on their land and benefit from an active participation in maintaining land value and voluntary rent.

While history is a subjective matter, the empirical information available reveals that there is a growing population and land is limited. The private single-family household is one that is quite new, but also a passing phase. Multi-tenant income property, shopping malls and the like, are a development of the past half-century. This approach should eventually infiltrate the public sector accepting the burden of water, waste management, energy and maintenance. Different jurisdictions of property would compete in a business-like manner on how best to provide protection from crime. This is a distinct improvement over monopolistic government if one understands the fundamentals of the market and service.

And while it is obvious that this build isn’t the standard proprietary zone defense formula, there is no doubt, that needs must be met – and the competing security agencies would develop methods that sell best to the consumer.

It is not enough to look into the means of land and its utilities eventually becoming a servant of the private sector. We must look at the eventual decentralized powers of technology and its inevitable passage to the hands of the common man. It has been the mistake in the past to assume the government would be the only entity capable of controlling technology. But because of the wealth of information available for this argument (and its eventual straying from the origins of the topic at hand) I must continue this at another time – with a tighter focus.

What Nonsense?

What Nonsense?

Freedom is indeed personal. But is it indeed true that my very act of defending a concept achieves the very opposite of what I intend? What of the cost of remaining silent?

How then would I explain to those who are ignorant, that anarchists do not practice the business of preaching foolish and wild acts? The apolitical philosophy has nothing in common with violence or a state of chaos. The state of existence to which I hold can never come about without it first entering the heads of the common mind. I cannot allow myself to be defenseless to misconceptions without first arming myself to the teeth with logic.

So in accepting that my ideal cannot come to pass, I accept that people who are nothing more than nihilists will be called anarchists. I accept that people would call me a fool whether or not I can dance circles of logic around their blustering protest. Fate dictates that every new idea be blasphemy. Then when change begins to take place, the sins of the previous order are blamed at our footsteps. This is old news.

So yes, I believe in the necessity for a displacement of our current system of injustice. So long as man rules man there will never be peace. I believe in humans and their worth over the empty words and laws which man has currently made and will eventually make. I would call for a complete disintegration of the principle for authority. If for this you condemn me, continue to call me a fool. I never said that I believed we will change our ways. I only believe that we must for the very notion of liberty to exist. Until then, I let my thoughts pour.

Lysander Spooner's Dilemma

If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice. If there be no such natural principle as honesty, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor can ever exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist[…] - Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law," Section V

Onus probandi

Logic dictates that the burden of proof must be placed on any positive claim. Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. “The necessity of proof lies with he who complains.” A common misconception is that the anarchist (whether or not they are a collectivist or individualist) has the burden of proof.

However; both statists and anarchists make positive assertions about social organization. Both parties agree that markets should exist. The statist is forced to make an extra burden of proof. That social organization needs to be constructed on such a massive scale.

The statist is incapable of shedding this extra burden once they admit they make a positive claim. In this, we naturally win.

Let’s move on.

Geometric Argument

Let us assume there are three people on a deserted island. A third person happens to have access to a larger portion of resources. A majority rule is enacted and the two work together to reallocate the third lucky person’s extra resources. This is taxation. Now, replace those three people, with millions of people and you see where I’m going. Now that is what I consider organized crime of a massive scale.

Freedom's Imperative
by Jim Davies

Proving that Market Anarchy is the only justifiable organizational system by demonstrating that self-ownership is axiomatically true and that Market Anarchy is the only organizational system built on that premise.

The Problem of Collectivist Obligation

(1) One or more of three possibilities must be obtain:

* Morality does not exist.
* Morality is determined by the individual (realism, subjectivism, etc).
* Morality is determined by the collective (autocracy, utilitarianism, etc).

(2) Morality necessarily exists, because:

* Morality is axiomatic (cannot be denied without direct contradiction).
* Morality is a necessary fact for all moral agents.

(3) Either morality is determined by the individual moral agent, or the collective, or both. (from 1 and 2)

(4) Collectivist obligation is inter-subjective relative to the collectivist belief system.

(5) Any moral obligation towards the collective would have to be demonstrated objectively (i.e. as a fact that exists independently from the group).

(6) It is impossible to go from inter-subjective propositions to objective propositions, as any given sum or network of inter-subjective propositions must still remain grounded to the belief system.

(7) It is impossible to justify the passage from collectivist obligation to moral obligation. (from 4, 5 and 6)

(8) Morality cannot be determined by the collective. (from 7)

(9) Morality can only be determined by the individual moral agent. (from 3 and 8)

Hence:

Moral Argument

A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons). Can also be called "universality." Argument made by Murray Rothbard in his book The Ethics of Liberty.

Gun control is invalid because it sets one principle for one group (state exploiters)- you can have guns- and another principle for the rest of us- you can't have guns. Taxation is invalid because theft remains criminal in all other instances. If it is just for some people to steal in the name of the "common good", then it should be good for everyone. And so on.

I Confess..

I cannot help it. I’ve argued heatedly and I’ve held the coldest of discourse. When one mocked me or made preconceived notions of the love for my theory – I tempered it with heavy-laden logic. I perceive it is this logic that is indeed, heavy; indeed leaden. For while it is one thing to utterly confound my opposition to my beliefs with wit and intellect – it is another to completely lose them by attacking with disregard for emotions and attention spans. Once boredom in your opponent is conceived, the point of displaying the thought (no matter how strong the argument) is fruitless.

That person will never again wish to hear another ounce and entrench themselves deeper in the ways they find comfortable. It is the nature of those with the mental faculty for satisfaction to despise those who are mentally active.

I will attempt to infuse much of my own personality into the subject at hand, giving reasons sufficient to myself. I hope that personal reasons coupled with logic-ridden generalizations may help illuminate that the political is indeed personal. There are many who would protest that I stick to cold rationale only. In the past I’d agree with those sneering philosophers. (They make the best of comrades). However; this protest seems more borne from the hatred for emotional appeal than is within reason.

We are human. The surface is comprised of logic. The bulk beneath is raw ore. To attack emotional appeal – one must fairly attack the logical portion of our beings.

Always I’ve maintained a craving. This craving grew in direct opposition to conventionality and tradition. This craving evolved to disagree with fads and fashion. This hunger grew for something that wasn’t force fed down the throat. This taste spat out the spun out details of elections and wars. It digested subjective history on administration and facts on bureaucracy. It was pleased at first. But I grew hungry to know: what about the people? Who paid for all these wars? What did they say in their homes those who never fought? Wasn’t the Civil War predominantly one for growth of Federal Government and not one of slavery? The dissatisfaction grew only when I was but eight years old.

I grew older and the disgust bloomed with it. I grew further angry that life was a never ending tale of bureaucracy. I learned fury when I looked on my classmates in quiet disbelief – seeing them for the cogs they were. I grew angry knowing, our education was one which meant for us to fit in with society. What of an education for us where the only notion was to enrich our heads with knowledge? Knowledge: not for the sake of upholding traditions which stagnate. Knowledge: not for the sake of keeping things as they are. Knowledge: not for the sake of making the same mistakes repeatedly.

Wisdom fed to us not for remedy! Lessons to nourish and strengthen the individual. The problem was never how to find a way to relieve distress, to feed poverty or shelter the homeless. The problem was never to make people codependent sops begging on the kindness and charity of others. The solution was to find a way for everyone to stand on their own feet.

I once believed that the Constitution could possibly protect almost anything (concerning the people). I loved the ideals for our country. Long thought, and a war between reason and lesson allowed me to conclude that the victory of the political in our great nation – was a husk. People believed rights on paper gave them their rights. Finally, the idea of a majority rule was found to be nothing more than a minority rule. The only desirable notion of society is one, where no one is compelled against their will to live or abide by a rule made with vested interest.

It was clear to me from the start that in order to attain actual liberty, one must have liberty in access to resources. Hence my interest in economics and the trade of values. So then what were those resources? How would a commoner in this era vulgaris come upon them when they are withheld and denied?

Motives are one thing, but everyone disagrees on the execution thereof. One common theme is ownership and possession of land.

American-borne Socialists would plead that land become property of state. The land would then be divvied out by committees representing a majority of local communities. The state would exercise theft on a large-scale, redistributing surplus to those who wouldn’t produce as much. The idea is old – through legal enactment, they wish to confiscate estates and declare the property for all.

This wasn’t satisfactory (though it was charming at first to my more compassionate side.) It was a reason I thought myself democratic at the tender age of 14. The social principle of equality is such that I couldn’t help but love it. I grew to abhor it within a few years.

In the end the weakened individual must still get permission to work. The individual would still be a chew toy for a mass of regulations and bureaucracy. While material comfort became more easily a ‘right’ to all, there was a delegated power assuming it knew best how everyone should live. Once that weak individual found labor, they would find that it wasn’t anything they truly wished to do. No, they would be demanded to work jobs that were deemed most necessary for society. This design is exceedingly simple – and Socialists are praised for its apparent simplicity.

However; by channeling efforts through the current system – they must confront the judicial power. Reforms of weaker character have done the same in the past. It seems certain that a socialist reform for redistribution of the land would then be deemed unconstitutional. And we’d be back to the drawing board. It was about this time, my conclusion was democracy was non-existent in our country. Rather we were a republic by definition. I began to entertain right-wing understandings.

So why anarchism? (Market Anarchy to be exact.) The title bears to mind violent ignoramuses, disturbers of the common people; disturbers of the peace. I could through a process of elimination muse on the different economic systems and reveal why each is quite unsatisfactory for me. I can just as easily filter through each form of anarchism with its secondary natures of communism, socialism, individualism, primitivism, syndicalism, pacifism and all other contrived ‘isms’. I’d be then raising a debate that those who identify as anarchists are more than willing to debate about. It is apparent that one form of anarchy is neither correct nor ideal as it then leads to another form of governance.

It seems to me to be a question of wealth but most importantly: its exchange.

It is the question of the nature of ‘value’ and the necessity for a ‘standard’ in asset exchange. Spooner I believe addressed this issue by revealing that wealth itself is neither material nor immaterial – but rather a flux between the both. Wealth begets wealth. One with a keen mind has the tools at hand to produce material wealth. Adam Smith comes to mind.

How many thousands of years must we debate over the trivialities of the superiority of one form of commodity over another? Let there be an end to a monopoly on the ‘necessity’ for a form of wealth. I’m sure someone starving for thirst would cast aside diamonds for water. Wealth is in the eye of the beholder; it is subjective. Let each community attempt a different form of money for exchange. It is quite apparent that there are currencies which rise to the top due to their liquidity and their prevalence within the market.

Centralization of wealth itself is the problem. Decentralization would not counter anything currently in place but for the ability to amass riches to a ridiculous corporate level to the detriment of competing small business. And while it is plainly good when a company reaches large-scale the negative effects are only attained through state-supportive monopolies and protectionist (specialist) agenda.

This is hailing of course from the theory for voluntary association. Not where we are placed side by side and expected to exist in peace as the current system dictates. Anarchism easily defines not utopia but heterotopia.

Now as to the application it becomes readily apparent that technology affords us a method for attaining this ideal liberty. Every machine is one of complexity and never is it conceived by one person. Always the different tweaks and developments are those of many (not always for profit) but for solving problems at hand. Take a look at Edison and the light bulb. He wasn’t the creator of the light bulb – he merely had access to patents and copyrights. His innovation came 70 years after the original. Since the creation is one of many and not ever of one – no one man deserves exclusive possession to it.

Technology is about production. The streamlining of production allows for goods to be produced at ever cheaper levels (and always for profit). It seems inevitable that technology may be able to outgrow monopoly.

The idea is simple: the way to liberty lies in plainly seeking land out and settling upon it and utilizing it. Each community should be absolutely free to make its own regulation (if it so chooses). There should be no imaginary line dictating regulation to people who live hundreds of miles in distance from each other, living with different interests and customs in mind. It seems to me, that the privatization of the public sector is the necessity.

The idea is simple: the way to liberty lies in not creating systems for the masses, but in allowing the minority – the individual ability to cope with the differences in ‘classes’. The way to liberty cannot be controlled and should not be controlled. Ever is it mankind’s method for wrestling with a world he has no right to conquer. Worse is it man’s method for controlling other men. It is not our place to rule others and it is not our place to be ruled. If there is a ruler – it is the ineffable, it is the ‘god’ construct the church maintained a knowledge monopoly over. If there is a ruler, we answer in the next life and not in this one. So instead of making it hell on earth – we should be attempting to build a heaven by all constructs now. Ceaseless is our struggle because we attempt to exercise dominion over the petty material things which easily rule us.

The aims of anarchism are only measurable in what one opposes. If one opposes the current state driven capitalist system – then that is the measure of anarchy for them. If one counters the selling of individual rights to another through the process of outdated marriage – then that is the measure of the feminist anarchism, ad infinitum.

It knows isolation is undesirable and impossible for the good of man. This system is one of mutual needs and collaboration. It is a system where resources are not taken away from the individual but rather, asserted as the natural birthright to all. It is a system where we retain our dignity above the pageants of wealth and class.

I despair knowing full well that my ideal shall never come to pass. I despair in my love for a theory knowing full well that the mass of our kind are too blind and witless to ever effect change. But I do not despair that I should remain silent to the ones I know and love. I do not despair that I’ve fallen for an ideal: freedom.

While I was away..

Let me know when
you'll hand it back;
my heart signed,
on some paper stack.

I freely loved before you were through..

You held in hand, my name.
I held in hand, your heart.
You were free to take it back -
I apparently can't.

Now we're stuck waiting for those forms
to let us know
when we can end this battle;
this weight dragged on.

I recognized clearly
we didn't need papers
we didn't need lawyers
to claim what we knew.

You always wanted paper;
I always wanted you.

I freely loved before you were through
and now we're through.

You left it filed away
next to the tax return,
like you could return my heart
under a two year warranty.

I guess some things weren't made to last -
too bad.
This manufacturer makes only
one-of-a-kind demands.

Wrote this while on break. How quaint.

Moving Forward..

I came home with nothing to say. With my laundry basket, blanket and hands full - I had little room to empty thoughts. I came home with nothing new to add. I wanted to say, my old friends are well, that my best friend is leaving for school, yet somehow all that fell through.

Events are what we make of them. It is excused otherwise. Whether we were created or made, we were meant to overcome obstacles. I came home with a conclusion.

I can't go back to my old way of life and ever be happy. I'll not meet anyone that could possibly be my companion. No, sadly a trip to my friends for vacation helped me grasp that I'm not capable of going out with much enthusiasm. I'm not capable of holding chit for chat on trivialities. If I don't know you - I don't wear much in patience.

I sat in a car with my old 'friend' Austin whom babbled on about the latest fashion and shows he watched. I sat silent - attempting to wade through the spew. Could I care less? Possibly. Who really makes it their life to prattle on about something that matters so little? He continued his ramble on Britney Spears and the VMA's. I continued nodding politely and grunting when he needed filler. He wants to move to Maui. Somehow that slipped in and I fumbled to recover the conversation to something more meaningful.

"Why Maui?" I tried to reason out that the prices of living were the very reason my family moved away and that he'd be reduced from less than middle income to nothing more than a wage slave. He didn't care. He summarized it so succinctly that I felt compelled to bite my tongue. He didn't care. So, why should I?

Prada, current boyfriends, D&G, name drop, empty thought, Rihanna, cute guys, and "look at his ass."

Ugh.

Who lives like this? I used to apparently find these things fascinating somehow because he was very bent on telling me it all. I could give a shit.

We went shopping. Correction; he went shopping - I stared helplessly at the clothing racks, then at the window. I excused myself for a smoke I hadn't had in months. I'm supposed to be done with that habit. Idle chatter brings out the worst in me.

So I sat outside glaring against the sun, inhaling the Camel against better judgment. Against better judgment, yet clearly drawing distinctions.

There was absolutely no way I could carry on my life in this tangent. I wasted a significant portion of my life by whim and chase for that 'someone'. So when asked if I've ever loved - I'll answer yes. Yes I have. I was in love with love. Now we avoid each other. Some friends would say I'm too picky, I'd say easily from experience - I wasn't picky enough. If I was being picky - I'm sure I would have met someone by now who wouldn't disappoint me. If I was being picky I would have held a conversation with words containing more than three syllables.

If I was being picky - I'd be silent because I was actually listening. Not silent because I wasn't sure of what to say. Silent because we both understood the other. I laugh now, but the thought occurred to me, I could hire an escort and pay him to just sleep the night and hold me. That's all. Nothing else. I've never been to bed with a guy who has tried anything but snuggle.

I came home with my tongue tied. I came home lonely. My body aching for someone to hold me, but my mind sighed in relief that the whole of me understood.

It's best I’m happy alone.

To life..

Note to self: Try this more often.

Sleep might be more of a money-maker than you thought.

Sleeping_Entrepreneur A new poll by Fortune Small Business found that 84% of entrepreneurs said they developed business ideas or solved work-related problems while sleeping. The results were featured in a broader package of stories on the benefits of adequate sleep for entrepreneurs.

Alan Stafford, an executive coach and self-described “sleepworker” interviewed by Fortune Small Business, offers tips on how entrepreneurs can boost their creative and problem-solving juices during sleep, such as identifying business problems that need to be solved right before falling asleep, waking up slowly instead of with an alarm clock and keeping a dream journal on the nightstand.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised: I find some of my best ideas come around dawn in the hours I’m drifting in and out of sleep before actually climbing out of bed.

How about you? Ever have an inspiration while you slept? Or are you too busy to sleep much in the first place?

I'm not entirely surprised. I'm also completely sympathetic. Work weeks stretch out too far these past few months, and I know that it'll be like this for the duration of my life. Its a lifestyle and choice in this case.

Yes, I'd prefer working a lot to having a life. I haven't had a martini lunch in a few years. But again - not going to really complain. The only regret I have is the lack of sleep I actually win. I'm going to try this more often - and when I go on vacation I'll be sure to email myself thoughts to developing leads for the business. It's odd - I'm going on break and I can't just stop working. That would be a travesty. Really the projects can't handle a week off. I'm more or less forcing myself to go and try and handle it with some measure of relaxation.

In the back of my mind while I'm partying it up - I'll also be thinking about how to come up with the right mindset to speak with some potential sellers.

There is a certain amount of rational to this.

See the economy isn't so bad as it is in a correction. Everything investors have put money into is being revealed. We've seen six (I believe) credit companies go under. When the mistakes are shown to be numerous - the obvious thing is to drop them. Cut them. Like pruning a tree. Has anyone noticed some restaurants are risking loyalty with downgraded and poorer quality products? I certainly have. And they aren't receiving my business if they intend on keeping their cheap products at the same rate.

Yes, its costly to be an entrepreneur at this point in time. But - thats the gist of it. To those who make it past the intitial hurdle of costs there are alternatives. To those that make it when all others have lost - they'll come out quite successful. That's half the battle right? Survival.

Instead of cheapening the product - they should be looking to alternative types. I know we have. Instead of lower-quality we've been investing in alternative media for sales. We've alternated the sales of products to reflect seasonal needs. Focusing on selling short term, low cost equipment parts (vs the machinery that requires quite a bit of investment). Instead of allowing the sellers to monopolize on this and raise their prices - we've agreed instead to buy into bigger bulk - to keep the costs down overall. It works out for both buyer and seller.

In the end - loyalty from the customer is what keeps business afloat. If business owners continue to charge the same price but cheapen the product - they lose. This is the time to obfuscate problems by innovating on a variety of products at lower rates.

The worst part is things just don't cost more as that our dollar has dropped in value. Thus we can measure the worth of our dollar by the increase in prices on goods. I try not to cringe when I do spend. I know its ultimately not worth the extra stress if I absolutely have to have it.

So here's to a vacation, to business, to life. I'll see you all in a week.*

*Sooner if I have to update. >_<

Racing Time

How do people do it? How do they manage to invest so much time into work and still maintain relations? Is it because they are better at multitasking? Or am I just looking at the surface?

Thankfully I'm heading on a long awaited break. I've been busting butt these past few months and I find it amusing that I still found time to multitask writing into the entire mixture. I'll be taking one more vacation for the year and then it'll really be crunch time. I’m already investing 70-80 hours of my time per week just for one job. But the time seems to whittle to nothing!

My only friend is heading off to school (finally!) and I'm really pleased with her for that. While that does leave me with nothing - it isn't really horrible. She's furthering herself as am I. It also notably frees extra time for me to work. When she is off focusing on her life - I'll be able to completely devote all efforts to myself.

It's odd; I have my hand dipped into all sorts of projects. But I find myself needing to take a look at what I'm doing - and arrange them in an ordinal manner.

Firstly I need to complete this project for the library I work for. We are near end of the first segment. After that – it is a cake walk. When I work this much I find it unfathomable to meet or socialize with anyone outside of business. I can't invest any more of my actual time. Everything is about developing business at this point.

Secondly I recently mused that we should set an article-relevant blog and mirror site for the actual company so that we could develop leads. I proposed a creation of a forum. Now that they love my idea.. I'm to complete the research as well. >_> Sure; don't make me sweat it or nothing. But I can hardly complain - it means a 'bonus'. The demographic is feasible, its not too much to maintain. It is however; yet another project to throw on me. Luckily this will be relatively easy to accomplish while I'm in the office as it just requires me toggling between windows and developing rapport with the customers and other entities.

In my 'free-time' I'm researching for a potential future demographic. I am planning on opening a business. I know who I'm selling to. But I need to research a bit more into the costs of setting it up. If I can - I'll take the promotion to Buyer/Seller for the library and then use the money I make from that towards this business venture if everything seems sound. Meanwhile I'm developing my own network with the customers I intend on selling to. If all else fails – I at least learned something about my potential =)

I also am starting to 'relearn' Japanese. It isn't so difficult because my stepmother is Japanese. I figure this should be an asset for whoever wants to hire me. If I can get my Japanese above rudimentary then I’ll be perfectly set before I head to school.

When the business venture is over with here I will then be moving to Las Vegas. I'll be pursuing a BSBA and then following up with a MBA/MIS. The reason I choose so is because I have a scholarship applicable there - and they train for the MBA/MIS quite well.

So I’ve learned something today.

I have no life. Yet I’m attempting to make one – hopefully I’ll have time to myself in five years. I project about three years of improbability for actual dating. I project about two years for not making any new friends. But I do project a sickening amount of growth for myself. I hope I’ve chosen well.

*Down the Rabbit Hole by somefield@deviantart.com

At least I'm Far from Hitler..

The Political Compass™ has charted the most prominent names in the 2008 US Primaries. They have been evaluated through scrutiny of public statements, manifestos, interviews and, crucially, voting records. Our apologies for those not included.

It is important to recognise that The Political Compass™ is a continuum rather than consisting of hard and fast quadrants. For example, Ron Paul on the social scale is actually closer to Dennis Kucinich than to many figures within his own party. But on the economic scale, they are, of course, far apart.

When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a mainstream conservative.

Traditionally, political worldviews have been categorised as 'left' or 'right', according to the weight they give to various values. The left-right line was established for the French National Assembly of 1789, and has become simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?


If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.


That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added a perpendicular scale, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process. The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).




















Note where I sit. I'm rather pleased with my placement far from the Fuhrer and Chief.

What this plot reveals is that I actually vouch for true 'freedom' on both an economic and social scale. Most people speak as if they understand what liberty is - which usually plots them up above - touting their philosophy as the be all end all.

I end with a quote about democracy. By its very principle - it is hypocritical. Please pay attention to Voltairine de Cleyre.

Vain delusion! Government is unreal, as intangible, as unapproachable as God. Try it, if you don’t believe it. […]

“I go to the White House; I say: “Mr. President, are you the government?”

“No, madam, I am its representative.”

“Well where is the principal? – who is the government?”

“The people of the United States.”

“The whole people?”

“I was elected.”

“Elected by whom?” the whole people?”

“Oh no, by some of the people; some of the voters. The majority vote of the whole was for another man, but I had the largest electoral vote.”

“Then you are a representative of the Electoral College, not of the whole people, nor the majority of the people, nor even a majority of the voters. But suppose the largest number of ballots cast had been for you: you would represent the majority of the voters, I suppose. But the majority, sir is not a tangible thing; it is an unknown quantity. An agent is usually held accountable to his principals.

If you do not know the individuals who voted for you, then you do not know for whom you are acting, nor to whom you are accountable. If any body of persons has delegated to you any authority, the disposal of any right or part of a right, (supposing rights are transferable), you must have received it from the individuals composing that body; and you must have some means of learning who those individuals are, or you cannot know for whom you act, and you are utterly irresponsible as an agent.

Furthermore, such a body of voters can not give into your charge any rights but their own; by no possible jugglery of logic can they delegate the exercise of any function which they themselves do not control. If any individual on earth has a right to delegate his powers to whomsoever he chooses, then every other individual has an equal right; and if each has an equal right, then none can choose an agent for another without the other’s consent.

Therefore, if the power of government resides in the whole people, and out of that whole all but one elected you as their agent, you would still have no authority whatever to act for the one. The individuals composing the minority who did not appoint you have just the same rights and powers as those composing the majority who did; and if they prefer not to delegate them at all, then neither you nor any one, has any authority whatever to coerce them into accepting you, or anyone as their agent. Upon your own basis the coercive authority resides not in the majority, not in any proportion of the people, but in the whole people.”

Hence, the necessary “overthrow of government” as a coercive power, thereby denying tyranny in another form.

Rerum Concordia Discors

Quo animo?
Quo iure?
Neutiquam erro
nil admiraro.

Omnia mutantur nos
et mutamur in illis.
Quod natura
non sunt turpia.

Regnat non regitur
qui nihil nisi quod vult facit.
Respice finem.
Rerum concordia discors.

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur lol.


My musing translated:

With what spirit?
what law?
I am not lost
I admire nothing.

All things change
and we change with them.
What is natural
cannot be bad.

He who is king, is not a subject
who does what he wishes.
Look to the end.
The concord of things through discord.

Everything sounds profound in Latin lol.

*Golden Apple by WizardofRoz@deviantart.com

Advice from a Caterpillar

In order to combat the state spread policies of destruction we need an economically informed public.

Not many read into economics. However; once started, it can evolve to a new way of studying the very movement of society. I've been consumed for months after picking up on one article by the Mises Institute.

It is not without much thought that I've finally decided upon a course of action. Now in the past few months as I worked, I toyed heavily with pursuing Economics, most notably Austrian Economics. However; events dictate a slightly different path - and one that is not entirely unwholesome for me. No; it is quite palatable. I will be pursuant of a BSBA after my work is done here. When that is accomplished I'll be finishing up with an MBA/MIS. That is, Masters in Business Administration combined with Management Information Systems. Because of the locality I believe Sin City is my appropriate future abode.

It is exciting to realize in a mere reading that so much of what our society takes for granted is false. After a mere session one feels compelled to start spreading the truth. Which is in essence why I've decided to place my 'faith' in this one art of studying social behavior. Forget everything you knew about sociology and psychology; learn everything about economics. It cuts to the root of the matters of interpersonal exchange. Economists may differ in light of favoring the Keynesian model and the Free-Market faith - however; they both at least address the movement of our society.

To better understand this let us take a look into inflation. The majority of people view inflation like a disease. It rushes through like a tidal wave, creating an interesting arrangement of wreckage. Damage is obvious - causes are not. At this point we see everyone pointing their fingers at everyone else. However; when you understand economics, you realize of course that the value of money is more affected by its quantity. You realize that only one institution contains the ultimate power of creating money out of thin air. This is without limit: it is the government-connected central bank.

As an example I take from someone who mentioned this earlier today. It is a readily apparent fact. This is what happens when we stray from in specie (in coins and not in paper money.) This is what happens when you place faith that the government is to have a hand in the invisible hand of markets.

I took this from someone on here but have abbreviated their sn. *Let me know if its ok to use your full sn!

"The price of gasoline and other petroleum products haven't gone up substantially in many years.

The value of the individual unit of currency used to purchase the above products, has been invisibly devalued to the point where we're not appreciably paid more units, but everything costs more units.

In 1900, 1 troy oz of gold = 10 barrels of oil = 20 American dollars. The only part of this that has changed, is that an American dollar is now worth only roughly 2 cents, and falling in geometric progression.

Coincidentally, if you take separate charts depicting the skyrocketing prices of commodities over time, for example: gold, silver, platinum, oil, whatever, and you superimpose them on one another, they will virtually form one single line. If you then flip this chart upside down, you'll have a chart virtually depicting the precise collapse of the dollar due to hyperinflation over time." - sc82

Economics forces our minds to comprehend society. It forces our minds to analyze many different views. We are changed from the ordinary consumer or even producer, to one that views the interests of all consumers and all producers. Instead of the short term we are forced to view the long term. This long term visual aids in spotting the effects of governmental policies. Hazlitt covers this in the first chapter. This book is rather interesting in that it was written 60 years ago and yet, reflects our society ignoring the time differences. It remains a powerful book of which anyone can read.

Commerce being the interpersonal netting of society must be defended. Entrepreneurs are changed to great heroes. Producers have plights. Unions are not necessarily defenders of rights; they are priveleged cartels of which exclude people who need work. Regulations are not for consumer protection. They are cost-raising messes lobbied for by producers attacks on other producers. They are fights carried out by big corporations against smaller private businesses. Antitrust is no longer a safeguard against the excesses of the corporate branches but rather, a bludgeon used by the big players against smarter competitors.

It helps us fit facts into the assemblage of a coherent world theory. The battle is not in court, it is no where near the election polls. The presidency has no hand in it, nor the legislature from which all our free-rides for freedom are damned. The battleground of the economist concerns a domain of existence of which is more powerful in the long run. This domain concerns the ideas of the individual trying to grasp the wheels of the world.

Knowledge is not merely for knowledge's sake. Remember:

"Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy." (reprint in Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203)

Ipsa scientia potestas est. So let us take control of knowledge and wrest it from those who do everything to blind side the public. It is the well-being of society. It is freedom and the flowering of civilization that are at the precipice. The abstract ideas of cause and effect ultimately decide our direction in society.

Liberty is the only true economy.

[...] the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist. [...] I am sure the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas [...] But soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

– John Maynard Keynes

*Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Harbinger. 1965.

*art by hobofarmer@deviantart.com

..Snakes Cannot Lie

Reeds rippled to the east.
A breeze running late overnight
revealed sidewinders
racing through the stalks -
stalking the charmer,
my rising dawn.

Splendid;
the wicks of emerald sparked glowing gold
and while the weeds coiled
I listened patiently
to the serpents silver tongue
licking silence with its coal black hum
- a silent beaming sun.

Snakes cannot lie.
The roots of my world
are honestly devoured
by serpents of the word.
The screen pressed my lips
as I fingered the trails of the
original sin through the bracken
and behind my glass
my eyes flickered,
a silent raging glow.

- m of bedlam

I woke early this morning to my curtains reaching across the room. I live on about twenty acres and it was actually fascinating to watch the fields ripple. It was like watching the splendid yet ravenous approach of the Midgard Serpent. That led me to this.

Portmanteaux - Nonsense Makes Sense

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

I was experimenting with shots on a reflective piece of tin and this shot warped just enough towards the bottom. I recall the movie Science of Sleep. But I also recall the Jabberwocky. It made me think about how evocative dreams are. But more or less how reality can truly be strange all on its own.

Here is a translation of the portmanteaux.


It was four o'clock in the afternoon and the slimy, lithe badger
corkscrewed in the grass circle of the sundial:
All miserable and flimsy were the feathered mop birds
and lost green pigs whistled and bellowed.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the desperate passionate bird, and shun
The fuming, furious creature with snapping jaws!"

He took his verbal/gospel sword in hand:
Long time the fearsome foe he sought --
So he rested by the Tumtum drum tree,
And stood awhile in thought

And while in rough and gruff thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the thick dark woods,
And warbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The verbal/gospel blade sliced and hacked!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galloping triumphantly back.

"And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beaming boy!
O beautiful and fabulous a day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

It was four o'clock in the afternoon and the slimy, lithe badger
corkscrewed in the grass circle of the sundial:
All miserable and flimsy were the feathered mop birds
and lost green pigs whistled and bellowed.

..This and That

I don't really practice much in the way of creative writing. I enjoy reading it; here's to a change of quills.

I've always felt safer with logic or reasoning. The lashing of any critique on my expression leaves me feeling raw and shaken.

When I write I feel like the scarecrow strung up high above the field. Yet as high as I am above the dirt, I still stare compelled with my bent and weak neck. I avoid looking at the eyes in the sky, I avoid seeing where my emotions rise. I feel alone in that field and I worry that the craven ravens will pick at me silently.

No, it is a lot easier for me to write of fanciful things. Dreamy and wondrous theories of 'what could have been,' 'how would it be,' and 'how it may be.' It's easier to discuss the worlds fairy tales and urban thoughts. I'd rather bask in the harvest moon, bask in the reaping of others - without suffering my sow.

It's easier to watch the world unfold than to fold that world into my grasp.

Maybe I fold my hand by not placing my bets. Playing it safe has left me out of the game. I don't presume I can express the world better on a folded parchment when all around me life is unbearably beautiful. It's beautiful, like the awkward twists of an arthritic wrist. The grief at a funeral is symphonic - but the dread and suffering is the harmonic.

No, much easier to pretend I don't see these things and not write about them. It's beautiful and I feel like I bludgeon shapes into the world with my words. I feel true artists take their strings of thought and play cat's cradle. I feel I sometimes pull too hard and thus strangle the image from its original purpose. The expression of me is 'lost in translation.'

I find this somehow amusing - as my screen name, idiom; has stuck with me for a long while. It is of course a culturally intrinsic expression which loses it's meaning across cultures. I feel that I have an expression which is intrinsic to me; and disturbingly alien to the world around me.

I adore everything around me - from dust that piles up, to the obvious charm in color. I find it unbearably breathtaking when you combine the 'ugly' with the 'mainstream beauty'. It's gritty.

My mind wanders without goals - I tend to spit what comes first.

Form and Function

Last night I entered my room; a monsoon gale bent on blowing every little thing every which way. Peacock feathers were replaced with silver reeds. The vase with the newly acquired reeds was thrown across the room. My blustering efforts scattered the books into orderly piles, I’m rather pleased with the results.

We had an extra cabinet door just lying around waiting to be fixed. Well instead, I took liberty to use it as décor; it now rests like a canvas, waiting to be finished. An aborigine boomerang I received from a long ago birthday was fixed in a safer spot. The ducks (which are my fathers) are now on one wall mounted in a reasonably pleasing order. The leopard print throw is minimized by the tree branches I arranged over it. I wish they were drift wood though – that would look much better.

I took down most of my framed photos of a rockabilly retro bar. Somehow the white walls look perfectly fine without them intruding.

There is something distinctly Spartan about my office (and bedroom) now. Yet I’m very pleased with this as well.

It makes me realize that I used to treasure knick knacks and all sorts of décor. I enjoyed the mingling of yard sale finds with expensive imports. Somehow that whimsy is gone. I somehow replaced that fanciful nature with something more streamlined.

Form and Function. What a novel thought ;)

As we get older do we find reason to discard the extras as habit? I’ve found that I’ve always made sure to dispose of things regularly. Yet, I can blame this on my rather nomadic habits and upbringing. I have friends who have plenty of possessions which are obviously dear to them and thus – why they hold on to them. Yet, I know if I receive a gift – I don’t feel obliged to flaunt or show it. Not unless it reflects what I want in my living space. I have a feeling when I get a house, that it will be rather minimalist by nature. I’ll more than likely make up for the emptiness with bold and sharp statements.

As an example I want textured concrete flooring, but I’ll be sure to utilize some natural fiber rugs, probably of a lighter color to lift the dark flooring. I want metal and glass fixtures, but I think I’ll have to add warmth with richly colored leather or suede lounge furniture.

This is where I come to a halt. I appreciate reductivist works. However; I hate how most of it feels cheap and tacky. I hope that if I’m going to have a sparse and modernistic backdrop, I’m going to be utilizing Nakashima’s designs for my furniture. His work is earthy and I hope to contrast such stark surroundings with the comfort of utilitarian beauty.

There’s something far more attractive about using traditional materials on modern shapes. As an example: I secretly want to steal my parents red corduroy couch and chair. Actually, that’s not really a secret.

*sighs*

Well probably ten years time I’ll be happy with the results. *sighs* I wish it were now.